Can someone explain to me the logic that goes behind the thinking that stricter gun laws make society a more dangerous place. You act like taking away people's guns will increase the amount of incidents, but most people don't own guns. If most in the general public don't carry firearms to begin with how will making guns harder to obtain a bad thing?

P.S. When people complain about gun laws are they really thinking about the public's safety or are they just angry that their high powered toy or security blanket might get taken away? *Just a question, please don't get angry*

Disarming innocent people does not protect innocent people.
Let me put this in perspective for you. You're sitting in a diner, eating breakfast with your family, a loved one, somebody that matters. A guy walks in with an assault rifle, and mows down 20 people siting there. No survivors, he was a good shot, everyone's brains are all over. And just for the hell of it, we will say that the government made it illegal for you to even carry a sidearm (like in Australia), whether it be open carry, or concealed carry. So nobody could defend themselves against this guy. However, if the guy sitting on the other side of the diner saw this guy walk in the door and pull a rifle up, and shot the **** right in the face, that's 20 people out of 21 that survived the attack (since the guy with the assault rifle was killed).
Outlawing any weapon is ridiculous if you ask me. The purpose of the second amendment is that we are allowed weapons to overthrow the government, should it become corrupt with tyrants. We were also supposed to be able to carry the EXACT same weapons as the military to be able to match our governments strength but that was done away with when automatic weapons were outlawed in the 80s.
Adolf Hitler once said, "To conquer a nation, first disarm its citizens." If anybody would know about taking over a nation, it'd be him.

“Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority. Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew’s possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation. Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions will be punished with imprisonment and a fine.” - Nazi Law (Regulations Against Jews’ Possession of Weapons), 1938

But how many people in America actually would choose to own weapons if gun laws were more lenient? Most people don't own guns and those who do often keep their guns at home (for home security). So is it realistic to assume that people at that diner would own guns even if they were relatively easy to obtain?

Personally, I can understand pocket pistols for personal protection, but why need anything greater? If it is government tyranny you wish to uprise against, any sort of formation of an army to oppose them would be illegal, so why would you need the guns to be legally obtainable? As for Hitler, he mentally disarmed his people. By uniting his people with nationalism and then brainwashing them with propaganda he was able to take and maintain power in Germany.

“Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority. Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew’s possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation. Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions will be punished with imprisonment and a fine.” - Nazi Law (Regulations Against Jews’ Possession of Weapons), 1938

Many people conceal carry so you can't see the pistols. As for the size when a soccer mom freaks out because they see a gun they freak out for no reason, thanks to the demonizing of guns, that is why guns are getting smaller. Also people don't need large magazines for day-day protection just for when hits the fan ie, government decides to turn into a police state. I conceal carry and I have used my weapon to stop an asshole from mugging my wife and I. I did not shoot the guy. The site of a M1911 made him **** his pants and run. This is a silly argument because it says in the constitution the right should not be infringed. The real problem is the lack of mental health care to stop people from thinking that it is a good idea to just hurt or kill a large group of people. "But hurr durr it does not state in the 2nd amendment it is for taking down the government. Look at the quotes of the "founding fathers" they obviously say what it is for. Okay, I am done ranting. Have a great day if you have more questions to ask in a civilized manner I will answer.

Those statistics are displayed incorrectly, Recording methods change in 1998 and 2002 meaning the crime 'appeared' to clime. Google it. Its common knowledge. You are speading misinformation and properganda. You are a bad man for doing so.

lastly. The UK has always had very strict guns laws. not much changed in 1996

and again, shame on you for pushing properganda. really! I hope your proud.

I cant post links because i dont have an account. Its easy to do.
Step 1 goto google, step 2 type in comparing crime stats between countries, read 10 to twenty links (avoiding the most extreme links on either side of the debate that has since come up since sandy hook.) You'll see raw data is almost incomparable.

Yeah that guy, he acts like he's in the know but he doesnt know what he's doing. Its a shame because so many fools will follow him because he says what they want to hear. Ahwell, what can you do. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing as they say.

I'm Sorry I couldn't believe that 1 amendment would increase your crime rates up to 350% to what you say they are when the FBI and the programs in whales and England classify violent crime the same way as in anything involving physical contact.

Plus this doesnt take into affect changes contributed to campaigns. in NZ around the year 2000 the government started pushing the public to report domestic violence, previously a taboo subject. Ofcourse then, reported incidents rose over the last decade despite the actual reduction in events due to the focus.

Thank you for the compliment, I am quite the asshole. Interesting that crime rates tend to increase with gun restrictions. But that even more interesting thing to note is that Japan has the lowest contact crime rate, yet also have the strictest laws against guns. This leads me to believe that gun violence may not be a result of the gun policy itself but rather the culture that surrounds it. Should we as a people be the ones to bring change to culture or should we depend on a government to try to sort things out itself without reflecting upon ourselves?